PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 27th day of October 2011
Filed on :19/09/2009
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No.502/2009
Between
K. Vinodkumar, : Complainant
S/o. V.C. Nair, A-2, Vyshnavam, (By Adv. Joseph George,
Valiyaparambil road, Kanakkanatt Buildings, Valavi road,
Elamakara, Kochi-682 026. Kochi-18)
And
1. R.F. Motors Pvt. Ltd., : Opposite parties
Skyline Gateway Apartments, (By Adv.P. Vijayamma,V. Krishna Menon,
Pathadipalam, Edappally, Menon & Menon, HRS Complex,
Ernakulam-682 033, 1st Floor, SRM Road, Kochi-682 018)
rep. by its Managing Director.
2. Tata Motors Ltd., Area Office,
3rd Floor, Tutus Towers,
N.H.47 Bye pass road,
Palarivattom, Kochi,
rep. by its Territory Manager.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
On 27-05-2009 the complainant purchased a Tata Indica Car from the 1st opposite party which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. As per the proforma invoice issued by the opposite party dated 14-05-2009 the total price of the car was Rs. 3,44,546/-. The complainant availed a loan of Rs. 3,27,970/- from Corporation Bank. The 1st opposite party delivered the car on 28-05-2009. The Registration certificate of the vehicle was kept by the 1st opposite party for the purpose of obtaining taxi permit from RT officer through Renil Joy the auto consultant of the 1st opposite party. The inspection of the vehicle for issue of taxi permit was done on 03-06-2009. Thereafter the complainant approached the 1st opposite party for receiving the RC book and permit at that time the 1st opposite party insisted for a further amount of Rs. 4,850/- towards extended warranty even though he had not requested the same. On 11-06-2009 the RTA Aluva inspected the car and directed the complainant to garage the car since he has not produced the RC book and permit the car was kept idle till 06-07-2009. The complainant was compelled to pay an amount of R. 4,500/- to the auto consultant to get his RC book and permit released. The complainant sustained a loss to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- due to non-plying the vehicle. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a total sum of Rs. 58,608/- with interest together with costs of the proceedings.
2. Version of the 1st opposite party
Complainant has purchased the vehicle for operating it as a taxi engaging paid drivers. So the complainant is not a consumer as defined in S. 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant was not personally present to take delivery of the vehicle. While handing over the vehicle to Mr. Muhammed representative of the complainant all the documents pertaining to the vehicle along with warranty book had been handed over to him. The RC book of the vehicle had been retained by the RTO since a fitness test had to be carried out on the said vehicle. Accordingly the inspection was conducted on 03-06-2009. The extended warranty was provided to the complainant on the consent of the complainant’s representative. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as claimed for.
3. The 2nd opposite party as well has raised similar contentions in their version as that of the 1st opposite party.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1, Exts. A1 to A7 were marked on his side. The witness for the 1st opposite party was examined as DW1, Exts. B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. The points that came up for consideration are.
i. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a total sum of Rs. 58,608/- with 24% future interest from the opposite parties?
iii. Costs of the proceedings
6. Point No. i. Apart from the contentions in the version nothing is on record to prove that the complainant is not a consumer as per the definition of a consumer in S.2(1) d of the Consumer Protection Act. So the averment of the opposite parties is unsustainable .
7. Point No. ii. It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the 1st opposite party which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 28/05/2009. Admittedly Ext. B1 is the order form of the car dated 27-05-2009 executed between the complainant and the 1st opposite party. In Ext. B1 the price of the car is mentioned as Rs. 3,50,970/- (including discount of Rs. 30,000/-) .
In addition to that an amount of Rs. 2,500/- is mentioned as registration charges and Rs. 4,850/- as extended warranty amount. So the contention of the complainant that he has paid an amount of Rs. 4,850/- towards extended warranty under protest is not sustainable. However the 1st opposite party stated that it was the option of the complainant to take additional warranty or not. Therefore the complainant is at liberty to approach the 1st opposite party to get the amount refunded only if he does not want to proceed with the extended warranty wherein he failed.
8. According to the complainant the 1st opposite party had levied a sum of Rs. 3,757.92 as per Ext. A5 towards labour charges. However the opposite party produced Ext. B4 in which it is stated that they have charged the above amount in the following heads.
Under body coating : Rs. 1,175/-
Vinyil Floor mat fixing charges :Rs. 1,632/-
Service tax @ 10.3% : Rs. 350.92
---------------------
Total Rs. 3,757.92
=============
The complainant does not have a case in his proof affidavit that he has not purchased the items as per Ext. B4. So there is no illegally in charging the amount as per Ext. B4.
9. It is stated by the complainant that on 11-06-2009 the RT Authorities directed him to garage the car since he was not in possession of the RC book and taxi permit. But nothing is on record to substantiate the contention of the complainant. Further the complainant stated that on 06-07-2009 he had to pay a sum of Rs. 4,500/- to the consultant to get the RC book and the permit from the RT office back. Since there is no evidence for the above payment naturally the averment is not sustainable at law
10 For the above aforesaid reasons we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is dismissed hence.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27th day of October 2011
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Proforma invoice dt. 14-05-2009
A2 : Copy of letter dt. 01-07-2009
A3 : Copy of A.D. card
A4 : Copy of letter dt. 04-07-2009
A5 : Copy of letter 28-05-2009
A6 : Copy of letter dt. 06-07-2009
A7 : Copy of letter dt. 08-07-2009
Opposite party’s Exhibits :
Ext. B1 : Copy of order form
B2 : Copy of gmail dt. 29/06/2009
B3 : Copy of letter dt. 04-07-2009
A4 : Copy of invoice dt. 27-05-2009
Depositions:
PW1 : K. Vinod Kumar
DW1 : Lovegin Antony
